Category: Internet Marketing

I believe we should be able to make our own choices and shape our lives however we wish.

I long for a world without borders, racism, sexism, and barriers of any kind.

These are big dreams, but they can gain momentum with small cultural shifts. I believe blockchain is one of those shifts.

I’m passionate about emerging technologies like AI, machine learning and bots not just in a nerdy, code-centric way, but because of what they represent.

Blockchain, specifically, promotes decentralization. As someone who came of age during the 2008 global financial crisis, I watched how wealth and power can breed corruption — even if people start out with good intentions.

Ever since society began, humans have put their faith in powerful figures, like popes and kings. Eventually we realized that individuals tend to make decisions that create optimal outcomes for a small, select group of people. Revolutions occurred and democratic governments began to rise.

The shift from a single cult of personality to a group of elected decision-makers marked our desire for more inclusive societies, where different groups of people can thrive.

The invention of blockchain takes that push for inclusion to another level by decentralizing decision-making — allowing token holders to have a say in how they want society to be structured.

Whether you’re deep in the waters of cryptocurrency or you’re still confused about what these new technologies could mean for your life, I want to cover a small slice of the blockchain revolution.

Tokenization is a great way to understand the philosophy behind cryptocurrency; how it works, but also what it stands for.

This is the future that many blockchain pioneers and enthusiasts envision. Get ready for the Tokenization of Everything (TOE) — and a lot more freedom.

What is Tokenization?

In today’s financial world, everything you own is tied to your name. Maybe you have a house, a car, stocks, or cash in the bank.

In the process of tokenization, all those assets can be broken into pieces. That means you can create a stock or a single proof of ownership tied to any asset.

For example, let’s start with a long-range vision for tokenization. This is the future that I might not even see in my lifetime.

Image credit: distributedlab.com

Imagine all my personal assets add up to a million dollars. Kind of a stretch, but it makes for easy math. Those combined assets could be broken into “Justin” coins that represent everything I own. If I created 100 coins or tokens, each would be worth $10,000.

The blockchain technology would allow anyone to trade their token(s) for a Justin coin. That means no banks, no financial managers, no complicated paperwork or red tape. It would be two people making a direct transaction.

The tokenization of everything imagines a world where anything can be traded. Your liquidity isn’t restricted by cash or concrete assets. Instead, it can include anything you own, and maybe even your time.

TOE removes all aspects of the middleman institution. It enables online transactions through a trusted, de-centralized system. It breaks down power and access barriers. We still have to contend with inequality in terms of assets and wealth, but no one can control how or what you trade.

The blockchain technology that powers these transactions also makes investing faster, cheaper and more secure. It liquefies assets and makes investing possible for people who have been restricted by means or geography.

Third-generation blockchain technologies like Cardano are trying to solve the big problem of operability, which means that everything is programmable, with an automated market-maker as the intermediary.

For example, imagine paying for your Starbucks order with airline miles, while the barista is paid in US dollars. That’s interoperability in action.

We’ve already watched the internet tear down gatekeeper layers in entertainment, publishing, communication, sales, and many other industries.

As we dismantle hierarchical financial systems, transaction costs go down, volumes go up, and people are more willing to trade with each other. It creates a more connected, global system.

This long-term vision also (perhaps ironically) takes us back to barter trading, which is where the concept of money first originated.

A Collection of Diverse, Personal Tokens

In the near future, blockchain could give us the ability to create multiple coins for several different assets.

Imagine you own a home worth $1 million (stay with me … this is all about that simple math).

You could again break the ownership of that home into 100 tokens worth $10,000 each. This scenario is much like creating a real estate index or trust fund to manage multiple properties. But now, you could sell partial ownership of your home with individual tokens that you create, trade and control. There’s no intermediary.

So, why would I want to sell partial ownership?

Great question. I would tokenize my home for two main reasons:

I want to make my assets more liquid. Maybe I’m traveling, starting a business, going back to school, or investing in something I think has great value. A home token would allow me to leverage some of the value in my house without selling it outright.

I believe my home won’t appreciate as fast as what you’re giving me in return. Maybe I’m trading my home token for your business token — and I think your business will gain value at a much faster rate than my home.

On the other side of the trade, you might want a share in my home if you believe it has better appreciation potential than your company. Our different perspectives on the asset valuation would allow us to reach a trade consensus.

If we can do all these different trades, it doesn’t matter where we live. Artificial geographic borders could break down when we don’t rely on a single entity or regime to prove our value.

For example, the global currency system determines how much our assets are worth, depending on the stability (or volatility) of our native currency and how our home country’s institutions reach consensus with other markets.

When assets are tokenized, that value is stored in a single profile with fully decentralized transaction paths.

Technology can streamline this brave new financial world.

If these scenarios feel complicated and time-consuming, I hear you. The idea of valuing your assets, making the trades, and ensuring you’re not getting duped in the process can sound more than a little overwhelming.

Again, I’m bullish about emerging tech because it has the power to help. I see a future where humans, aided by artificial intelligence, can make more efficient and effective financial decisions.

We might trust the people who currently control and manage our money — and in many cases this trust is well founded — but even “experts” don’t have all the answers.Investment requires educated decisions. No one has a crystal ball (unless they’re conducting insider trading).

Technology won’t provide foolproof investing, but it does remove industry greed from the equation.

Running your own trades eliminates high bank and investment fees. It ensures that you’re buying a stock because you think it’s smart, not because it pays kickbacks to the broker.

You won’t question the intentions of a financial institution, because they don’t have a hand in your assets.

Let the bots do the busywork.

Chatbots are arguably today’s most relatable AI application. Most people have used Facebook Messenger or interacted with a chatbot while shopping online or asking their telecom provider about those weird mobile charges.

Currently, chatbots are built to solve a specific set of problems. We’ve builtGrowthBot, for example, to deliver marketing and sales information without leaving your task or productivity platform (such as Slack).

You can ask questions about top posts, organic site traffic, or get company overviews. And instead of switching to a web browser and getting lost in a Google spiral, you can stay focused while GrowthBot digs up the details.

Now, apply this kind of “assistant” technology to your financial life. The bot could do everything from researching investments to calculating an asset value, in real time.Remember, the bot is not taking over. This isn’t a dystopian sci-fi plot. Instead, it’s providing the information you need to make a smart and highly personalized decision.

Then, the chatbot could actually conduct the transaction as you instruct. That means no more calls to your bro-ish financial advisor or trying to recover a lost login password.

We Still Have a Long Way to Go

We will still face complex, ongoing issues about who holds wealth in our society and how to level the field. I’m not naïve about these challenges, nor do I believe that technology is a magic solution.

Even cryptocurrencies are promising, but they’re still rife with problems. These are totally unregulated assets, for better and worse.

At this moment, the “worse” is an approximately 90% rate of fraud among Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), according to the People’s Bank of China.

Yet, I’m still motivated by the possibilities. Tokenization is just a tiny example of what a more decentralized, egalitarian, and direct financial system could enable.Technologies are ultimately just tools that we can harness to lead cultural change — and whether we’re talking AI, bots or blockchain, the code is inconsequential. What really matters is our intention.

It’s time to decide how we’ll organize our society, for hundreds of years to come.

I believe we should be able to make our own choices and shape our lives however we wish.

I long for a world without borders, racism, sexism, and barriers of any kind.

These are big dreams, but they can gain momentum with small cultural shifts. I believe blockchain is one of those shifts.

I’m passionate about emerging technologies like AI, machine learning and bots not just in a nerdy, code-centric way, but because of what they represent.

Blockchain, specifically, promotes decentralization. As someone who came of age during the 2008 global financial crisis, I watched how wealth and power can breed corruption — even if people start out with good intentions.

Ever since society began, humans have put their faith in powerful figures, like popes and kings. Eventually we realized that individuals tend to make decisions that create optimal outcomes for a small, select group of people. Revolutions occurred and democratic governments began to rise.

The shift from a single cult of personality to a group of elected decision-makers marked our desire for more inclusive societies, where different groups of people can thrive.

The invention of blockchain takes that push for inclusion to another level by decentralizing decision-making — allowing token holders to have a say in how they want society to be structured.

Whether you’re deep in the waters of cryptocurrency or you’re still confused about what these new technologies could mean for your life, I want to cover a small slice of the blockchain revolution.

Tokenization is a great way to understand the philosophy behind cryptocurrency; how it works, but also what it stands for.

This is the future that many blockchain pioneers and enthusiasts envision. Get ready for the Tokenization of Everything (TOE) — and a lot more freedom.

What is Tokenization?

In today’s financial world, everything you own is tied to your name. Maybe you have a house, a car, stocks, or cash in the bank.

In the process of tokenization, all those assets can be broken into pieces. That means you can create a stock or a single proof of ownership tied to any asset.

For example, let’s start with a long-range vision for tokenization. This is the future that I might not even see in my lifetime.

Image credit: distributedlab.com

Imagine all my personal assets add up to a million dollars. Kind of a stretch, but it makes for easy math. Those combined assets could be broken into “Justin” coins that represent everything I own. If I created 100 coins or tokens, each would be worth $10,000.

The blockchain technology would allow anyone to trade their token(s) for a Justin coin. That means no banks, no financial managers, no complicated paperwork or red tape. It would be two people making a direct transaction.

The tokenization of everything imagines a world where anything can be traded. Your liquidity isn’t restricted by cash or concrete assets. Instead, it can include anything you own, and maybe even your time.

TOE removes all aspects of the middleman institution. It enables online transactions through a trusted, de-centralized system. It breaks down power and access barriers. We still have to contend with inequality in terms of assets and wealth, but no one can control how or what you trade.

The blockchain technology that powers these transactions also makes investing faster, cheaper and more secure. It liquefies assets and makes investing possible for people who have been restricted by means or geography.

Third-generation blockchain technologies like Cardano are trying to solve the big problem of operability, which means that everything is programmable, with an automated market-maker as the intermediary.

For example, imagine paying for your Starbucks order with airline miles, while the barista is paid in US dollars. That’s interoperability in action.

We’ve already watched the internet tear down gatekeeper layers in entertainment, publishing, communication, sales, and many other industries.

As we dismantle hierarchical financial systems, transaction costs go down, volumes go up, and people are more willing to trade with each other. It creates a more connected, global system.

This long-term vision also (perhaps ironically) takes us back to barter trading, which is where the concept of money first originated.

A Collection of Diverse, Personal Tokens

In the near future, blockchain could give us the ability to create multiple coins for several different assets.

Imagine you own a home worth $1 million (stay with me … this is all about that simple math).

You could again break the ownership of that home into 100 tokens worth $10,000 each. This scenario is much like creating a real estate index or trust fund to manage multiple properties. But now, you could sell partial ownership of your home with individual tokens that you create, trade and control. There’s no intermediary.

So, why would I want to sell partial ownership?

Great question. I would tokenize my home for two main reasons:

I want to make my assets more liquid. Maybe I’m traveling, starting a business, going back to school, or investing in something I think has great value. A home token would allow me to leverage some of the value in my house without selling it outright.

I believe my home won’t appreciate as fast as what you’re giving me in return. Maybe I’m trading my home token for your business token — and I think your business will gain value at a much faster rate than my home.

On the other side of the trade, you might want a share in my home if you believe it has better appreciation potential than your company. Our different perspectives on the asset valuation would allow us to reach a trade consensus.

If we can do all these different trades, it doesn’t matter where we live. Artificial geographic borders could break down when we don’t rely on a single entity or regime to prove our value.

For example, the global currency system determines how much our assets are worth, depending on the stability (or volatility) of our native currency and how our home country’s institutions reach consensus with other markets.

When assets are tokenized, that value is stored in a single profile with fully decentralized transaction paths.

Technology can streamline this brave new financial world.

If these scenarios feel complicated and time-consuming, I hear you. The idea of valuing your assets, making the trades, and ensuring you’re not getting duped in the process can sound more than a little overwhelming.

Again, I’m bullish about emerging tech because it has the power to help. I see a future where humans, aided by artificial intelligence, can make more efficient and effective financial decisions.

We might trust the people who currently control and manage our money — and in many cases this trust is well founded — but even “experts” don’t have all the answers.Investment requires educated decisions. No one has a crystal ball (unless they’re conducting insider trading).

Technology won’t provide foolproof investing, but it does remove industry greed from the equation.

Running your own trades eliminates high bank and investment fees. It ensures that you’re buying a stock because you think it’s smart, not because it pays kickbacks to the broker.

You won’t question the intentions of a financial institution, because they don’t have a hand in your assets.

Let the bots do the busywork.

Chatbots are arguably today’s most relatable AI application. Most people have used Facebook Messenger or interacted with a chatbot while shopping online or asking their telecom provider about those weird mobile charges.

Currently, chatbots are built to solve a specific set of problems. We’ve builtGrowthBot, for example, to deliver marketing and sales information without leaving your task or productivity platform (such as Slack).

You can ask questions about top posts, organic site traffic, or get company overviews. And instead of switching to a web browser and getting lost in a Google spiral, you can stay focused while GrowthBot digs up the details.

Now, apply this kind of “assistant” technology to your financial life. The bot could do everything from researching investments to calculating an asset value, in real time.Remember, the bot is not taking over. This isn’t a dystopian sci-fi plot. Instead, it’s providing the information you need to make a smart and highly personalized decision.

Then, the chatbot could actually conduct the transaction as you instruct. That means no more calls to your bro-ish financial advisor or trying to recover a lost login password.

We Still Have a Long Way to Go

We will still face complex, ongoing issues about who holds wealth in our society and how to level the field. I’m not naïve about these challenges, nor do I believe that technology is a magic solution.

Even cryptocurrencies are promising, but they’re still rife with problems. These are totally unregulated assets, for better and worse.

At this moment, the “worse” is an approximately 90% rate of fraud among Initial Coin Offerings (ICOs), according to the People’s Bank of China.

Yet, I’m still motivated by the possibilities. Tokenization is just a tiny example of what a more decentralized, egalitarian, and direct financial system could enable.Technologies are ultimately just tools that we can harness to lead cultural change — and whether we’re talking AI, bots or blockchain, the code is inconsequential. What really matters is our intention.

It’s time to decide how we’ll organize our society, for hundreds of years to come.

How you finish that sentence could reveal a lot about your leadership style.

Leadership is a fluid practice. We’re always changing and improving the way in which we help our direct reports and the company grow. And the longer we lead, the more likely we’ll change the way we choose to complete the sentence above.

But in order to become better leaders tomorrow, we need to know where we stand today. To help you understand the impact each type of leader has on a company, I’ll explain seven of the most common types of leadership styles in play today and how effective they are.

Then, I’ll show you a leadership style assessment based on this post’s opening sentence to help you figure out which leader you are.

7 Types of Leadership Styles

1. Democratic Leadership

Commonly Effective

Democratic leadership is exactly what it sounds like — the leader makes decisions based on the input of each team member. Although he or she makes the final call, each employee has an equal say on a project’s direction.

Democratic leadership is one of the most effective leadership styles because it allows lower-level employees to exercise authority they’ll need to use wisely in future positions they might hold. It also resembles how decisions can be made in company board meetings.

2. Autocratic Leadership

Rarely Effective

Autocratic leadership is the inverse of democratic leadership. In this leadership style, the leader makes decisions without taking input from anyone who reports to them. Employees are neither considered nor consulted prior to a direction, and are expected to adhere to the decision at a time and pace stipulated by the leader.

Frankly, this leadership style stinks. Most organizations today can’t sustain such a hegemonic culture without losing employees. It’s best to keep leadership more open to the intellect and perspective of the rest of the team.

3. Laissez-Faire Leadership

Sometimes Effective

If you remember your high-school French, you’ll accurately assume that laissez-faire leadership is the least intrusive form of leadership. The French term “laissez faire” literally translates to “let them do,” and leaders who embrace it afford nearly all authority to their employees.

Although laissez-faire leadership can empower employees by trusting them to work however they’d like, it can limit their development and overlook critical company growth opportunities. Therefore, it’s important that this leadership style is kept in check.

4. Strategic Leadership

Commonly Effective

Strategic leaders sit at the intersection between a company’s main operations and its growth opportunities. He or she accepts the burden of executive interests while ensuring that current working conditions remain stable for everyone else.

This is a desirable leadership style in many companies because strategic thinking supports multiple types of employees at once. However, leaders who operate this way can set a dangerous precedent with respect to how many people they can support at once, and what the best direction for the company really is if everyone is getting their way at all times.

5. Transformational Leadership

Sometimes Effective

Transformational leadership is always “transforming” and improving upon the company’s conventions. Employees might have a basic set of tasks and goals that they complete every week or month, but the leader is constantly pushing them outside of their comfort zone.

This is a highly encouraged form of leadership among growth-minded companies because it motivates employees to see what they’re capable of. But transformational leaders can risk losing sight of everyone’s individual learning curves if direct reports don’t receive the right coaching to guide them through new responsibilities.

6. Transactional Leadership

Sometimes Effective

Transactional leaders are fairly common today. These managers reward their employees for precisely the work they do. A marketing team that receives a scheduled bonus for helping generate a certain number of leads by the end of the quarter is a common example of transactional leadership.

Transactional leadership helps establish roles and responsibilities for each employee, but it can also encourage bare-minimum work if employees know how much their effort is worth all the time. This leadership style can use incentive programs to motivate employees, but they should be consistent with the company’s goals and used in addition to unscheduled gestures of appreciation.

7. Bureaucratic Leadership

Rarely Effective

Bureaucratic leaders go by the books. This style of leadership might listen and consider the input of employees — unlike autocratic leadership — but the leader tends to reject an employee’s input if it conflicts with company policy or past practices.

Employees under this leadership style might not feel as controlled as they would under autocratic leadership, but there is still a lack of freedom in how much people are able to do in their roles. This can quickly shut down innovation, and is definitely not encouraged for companies who are chasing ambitious goals and quick growth.

Leadership Style Assessment

Leaders can carry a mix of the above leadership styles depending on their industry and the obstacles they face. At the root of these styles, according to leadership experts Bill Torbert and David Rooke, are what are called “action logics.”

These action logics assess “how [leaders] interpret their surroundings and react when their power or safety is challenged.”

That’s the idea behind a popular management survey tool called the Leadership Development Profile. Created by professor Torbert and psychologist Susanne Cook-Greuter — and featured in the book, Personal and Organizational Transformations — the survey relies on a set of 36 open-ended sentence completion tasks to help researchers better understand how leaders develop and grow.

Below, we’ve outlined six action logics using open-ended sentences that help describe each one. See how much you agree with each sentence and, at the bottom, find out which leadership style you uphold based on the action logics you most agreed with.

1. Individualist

The individualist, according to Rooke and Tolbert, is self-aware, creative, and primarily focused on their own actions and development as opposed to overall organizational performance. This action logic is exceptionally driven by the desire to exceed personal goals and constantly improve their skills.

Here are some things an individualist might say:

I1. “A good leader should always trust their own intuition over established organizational processes.”

I2. “It’s important to be able to relate to others so I can easily communicate complex ideas to them.”

I3.“I’m more comfortable with progress than sustained success.”

2. Strategist

Strategists are acutely aware of the environments in which they operate. They have a deep understanding of the structures and processes that make their businesses tick, but they’re also able to consider these frameworks critically and evaluate what could be improved.

Here are some things a strategist might say:

S1.“A good leader should always be able to build a consensus in divided groups.”

S2.“It’s important to help develop the organization as a whole, as well as the growth and individual achievements of my direct reports.”

S3.“Conflict is inevitable, but I’m knowledgeable enough about my team’s personal and professional relationships to handle the friction.”

3. Alchemist

Rooke and Tolbert describe this charismatic action logic as the most highly evolved and effective at managing organizational change. What distinguishes alchemists from other action logics is their unique ability to see the big picture in everything, but also fully understand the need to take details seriously. Under an alchemist leader, no department or employee is overlooked.

Here are some things an alchemist might say:

A1.“A good leader helps their employees reach their highest potential, and possesses the necessary empathy and moral awareness to get there.”

A2.“It’s important to make a profound and positive impact on whatever I’m working on.”

A3.“I have a unique ability to balance short-term needs and long-term goals.”

4. Opportunist

Opportunist are guided by a certain level of mistrust of others, relying on a facade of control to keep their employees in line. “Opportunists tend to regard their bad behavior as legitimate in the cut and thrust of an eye-for-an-eye world,” Rooke and Tolbert write.

Here are some things an opportunist might say:

O1.“A good leader should always view others as potential competition to be bested, even if it’s at the expense of their professional development.”

O2.“I reserve the right to reject the input of those who question or criticize my ideas.”

5. Diplomat

Unlike the opportunist, the diplomat isn’t concerned with competition or assuming control over situations. Instead, this action logic seeks to cause minimal impact on their organization by conforming to existing norms and completing their daily tasks with as little friction as possible.

Here are some things a diplomat might say:

D1.“A good leader should always resist change since it risks causing instability among their direct reports.”

D2.“It’s important to provide the ‘social glue’ in team situations, safely away from conflict.”

D3.“I tend to thrive in more team-oriented or supporting leadership roles.”

6. Expert

The expert is a pro in their given field, constantly striving to perfect their knowledge of a subject and perform to meet their own high expectations. Rooke and Tolbert describe the expert as a talented individual contributor and a source of knowledge for the team. But this action logic does lack something central to many good leaders: emotional intelligence.

Here are some things a diplomat might say:

E1.“A good leader should prioritize their own pursuit of knowledge over the needs of the organization and their direct reports.”

E2.“When problem solving with others in the company, my opinion tends to be the correct one.”

Which Leader Are You?

So, which action logics above felt like you? Think about each sentence for a moment … now, check out which of the seven leadership styles you embrace on the right based on the sentences you resonated with on the left.

Action Logic Sentence

Leadership Style

S3

Democratic

O1, O2, E1, E2

Autocratic

D2, D3, E1

Laissez-Faire

S1, S2, A3

Strategic

I1, I2, I3, A1, A2

Transformative

D3

Transactional

D1

Bureaucratic

The more action logics you agreed with, the more likely you practice a mix of leadership styles.

For example, if you agreed with everything the strategist said — denoted S1, S2, and S3 — this would make you a 66% strategic leader and 33% democratic leader. If you agreed with just S3, but also everything the alchemist said, this would make you a 50% transformative, 25% strategic, and 25% democratic leader.

Keep in mind that these action logics are considered developmental stages, not fixed attributes — most leaders will progress through multiple types of leadership throughout their careers.

How you finish that sentence could reveal a lot about your leadership style.

Leadership is a fluid practice. We’re always changing and improving the way in which we help our direct reports and the company grow. And the longer we lead, the more likely we’ll change the way we choose to complete the sentence above.

But in order to become better leaders tomorrow, we need to know where we stand today. To help you understand the impact each type of leader has on a company, I’ll explain seven of the most common types of leadership styles in play today and how effective they are.

Then, I’ll show you a leadership style assessment based on this post’s opening sentence to help you figure out which leader you are.

7 Types of Leadership Styles

1. Democratic Leadership

Commonly Effective

Democratic leadership is exactly what it sounds like — the leader makes decisions based on the input of each team member. Although he or she makes the final call, each employee has an equal say on a project’s direction.

Democratic leadership is one of the most effective leadership styles because it allows lower-level employees to exercise authority they’ll need to use wisely in future positions they might hold. It also resembles how decisions can be made in company board meetings.

2. Autocratic Leadership

Rarely Effective

Autocratic leadership is the inverse of democratic leadership. In this leadership style, the leader makes decisions without taking input from anyone who reports to them. Employees are neither considered nor consulted prior to a direction, and are expected to adhere to the decision at a time and pace stipulated by the leader.

Frankly, this leadership style stinks. Most organizations today can’t sustain such a hegemonic culture without losing employees. It’s best to keep leadership more open to the intellect and perspective of the rest of the team.

3. Laissez-Faire Leadership

Sometimes Effective

If you remember your high-school French, you’ll accurately assume that laissez-faire leadership is the least intrusive form of leadership. The French term “laissez faire” literally translates to “let them do,” and leaders who embrace it afford nearly all authority to their employees.

Although laissez-faire leadership can empower employees by trusting them to work however they’d like, it can limit their development and overlook critical company growth opportunities. Therefore, it’s important that this leadership style is kept in check.

4. Strategic Leadership

Commonly Effective

Strategic leaders sit at the intersection between a company’s main operations and its growth opportunities. He or she accepts the burden of executive interests while ensuring that current working conditions remain stable for everyone else.

This is a desirable leadership style in many companies because strategic thinking supports multiple types of employees at once. However, leaders who operate this way can set a dangerous precedent with respect to how many people they can support at once, and what the best direction for the company really is if everyone is getting their way at all times.

5. Transformational Leadership

Sometimes Effective

Transformational leadership is always “transforming” and improving upon the company’s conventions. Employees might have a basic set of tasks and goals that they complete every week or month, but the leader is constantly pushing them outside of their comfort zone.

This is a highly encouraged form of leadership among growth-minded companies because it motivates employees to see what they’re capable of. But transformational leaders can risk losing sight of everyone’s individual learning curves if direct reports don’t receive the right coaching to guide them through new responsibilities.

6. Transactional Leadership

Sometimes Effective

Transactional leaders are fairly common today. These managers reward their employees for precisely the work they do. A marketing team that receives a scheduled bonus for helping generate a certain number of leads by the end of the quarter is a common example of transactional leadership.

Transactional leadership helps establish roles and responsibilities for each employee, but it can also encourage bare-minimum work if employees know how much their effort is worth all the time. This leadership style can use incentive programs to motivate employees, but they should be consistent with the company’s goals and used in addition to unscheduled gestures of appreciation.

7. Bureaucratic Leadership

Rarely Effective

Bureaucratic leaders go by the books. This style of leadership might listen and consider the input of employees — unlike autocratic leadership — but the leader tends to reject an employee’s input if it conflicts with company policy or past practices.

Employees under this leadership style might not feel as controlled as they would under autocratic leadership, but there is still a lack of freedom in how much people are able to do in their roles. This can quickly shut down innovation, and is definitely not encouraged for companies who are chasing ambitious goals and quick growth.

Leadership Style Assessment

Leaders can carry a mix of the above leadership styles depending on their industry and the obstacles they face. At the root of these styles, according to leadership experts Bill Torbert and David Rooke, are what are called “action logics.”

These action logics assess “how [leaders] interpret their surroundings and react when their power or safety is challenged.”

That’s the idea behind a popular management survey tool called the Leadership Development Profile. Created by professor Torbert and psychologist Susanne Cook-Greuter — and featured in the book, Personal and Organizational Transformations — the survey relies on a set of 36 open-ended sentence completion tasks to help researchers better understand how leaders develop and grow.

Below, we’ve outlined six action logics using open-ended sentences that help describe each one. See how much you agree with each sentence and, at the bottom, find out which leadership style you uphold based on the action logics you most agreed with.

1. Individualist

The individualist, according to Rooke and Tolbert, is self-aware, creative, and primarily focused on their own actions and development as opposed to overall organizational performance. This action logic is exceptionally driven by the desire to exceed personal goals and constantly improve their skills.

Here are some things an individualist might say:

I1. “A good leader should always trust their own intuition over established organizational processes.”

I2. “It’s important to be able to relate to others so I can easily communicate complex ideas to them.”

I3.“I’m more comfortable with progress than sustained success.”

2. Strategist

Strategists are acutely aware of the environments in which they operate. They have a deep understanding of the structures and processes that make their businesses tick, but they’re also able to consider these frameworks critically and evaluate what could be improved.

Here are some things a strategist might say:

S1.“A good leader should always be able to build a consensus in divided groups.”

S2.“It’s important to help develop the organization as a whole, as well as the growth and individual achievements of my direct reports.”

S3.“Conflict is inevitable, but I’m knowledgeable enough about my team’s personal and professional relationships to handle the friction.”

3. Alchemist

Rooke and Tolbert describe this charismatic action logic as the most highly evolved and effective at managing organizational change. What distinguishes alchemists from other action logics is their unique ability to see the big picture in everything, but also fully understand the need to take details seriously. Under an alchemist leader, no department or employee is overlooked.

Here are some things an alchemist might say:

A1.“A good leader helps their employees reach their highest potential, and possesses the necessary empathy and moral awareness to get there.”

A2.“It’s important to make a profound and positive impact on whatever I’m working on.”

A3.“I have a unique ability to balance short-term needs and long-term goals.”

4. Opportunist

Opportunist are guided by a certain level of mistrust of others, relying on a facade of control to keep their employees in line. “Opportunists tend to regard their bad behavior as legitimate in the cut and thrust of an eye-for-an-eye world,” Rooke and Tolbert write.

Here are some things an opportunist might say:

O1.“A good leader should always view others as potential competition to be bested, even if it’s at the expense of their professional development.”

O2.“I reserve the right to reject the input of those who question or criticize my ideas.”

5. Diplomat

Unlike the opportunist, the diplomat isn’t concerned with competition or assuming control over situations. Instead, this action logic seeks to cause minimal impact on their organization by conforming to existing norms and completing their daily tasks with as little friction as possible.

Here are some things a diplomat might say:

D1.“A good leader should always resist change since it risks causing instability among their direct reports.”

D2.“It’s important to provide the ‘social glue’ in team situations, safely away from conflict.”

D3.“I tend to thrive in more team-oriented or supporting leadership roles.”

6. Expert

The expert is a pro in their given field, constantly striving to perfect their knowledge of a subject and perform to meet their own high expectations. Rooke and Tolbert describe the expert as a talented individual contributor and a source of knowledge for the team. But this action logic does lack something central to many good leaders: emotional intelligence.

Here are some things a diplomat might say:

E1.“A good leader should prioritize their own pursuit of knowledge over the needs of the organization and their direct reports.”

E2.“When problem solving with others in the company, my opinion tends to be the correct one.”

Which Leader Are You?

So, which action logics above felt like you? Think about each sentence for a moment … now, check out which of the seven leadership styles you embrace on the right based on the sentences you resonated with on the left.

Action Logic Sentence

Leadership Style

S3

Democratic

O1, O2, E1, E2

Autocratic

D2, D3, E1

Laissez-Faire

S1, S2, A3

Strategic

I1, I2, I3, A1, A2

Transformative

D3

Transactional

D1

Bureaucratic

The more action logics you agreed with, the more likely you practice a mix of leadership styles.

For example, if you agreed with everything the strategist said — denoted S1, S2, and S3 — this would make you a 66% strategic leader and 33% democratic leader. If you agreed with just S3, but also everything the alchemist said, this would make you a 50% transformative, 25% strategic, and 25% democratic leader.

Keep in mind that these action logics are considered developmental stages, not fixed attributes — most leaders will progress through multiple types of leadership throughout their careers.

I’m willing to bet you already know what kerning is — you just don’t realize it.

While you might not recognize when kerning is done well, you certainly see it when it’s done poorly.

Here’s an example of bad kerning: M a rk e t i ng .

Kerning is adjusting the space between letters, and either increasing or decreasing the distance to ensure better readability or appearance.

Interestingly, it’s not always best to have equal spacing between each letter. Each letter has different shapes and curves, so sometimes kerning actually helps the letters look less conspicuous. For instance, a “cl” can sometimes appear to be a “d”, so you might use kerning to space them further apart.

What is kerning?

Kerning refers to the space between letters to ensure better readability. Since not all letters are created with equal curves and shapes, you might need to increase or decrease the distance between one letter and another, to create more legible text. Kerning improves the appearance and design of your text, which might otherwise look awkward.

No matter what your job title, it’s important to understand the power of kerning. Kerning can help you create better designs, produce more visually appealing copy, or construct better presentations. Kerning is one of those actions that can push your deliverables from ordinary to exceptional.

If you don’t know how kerning works, don’t worry. Here, we’ll show you how to use kerning in Photoshop, Word, and Illustrator. Plus, we’ll provide examples of bad kerning, so you know what to avoid when using kerning for your own text.

Kerning vs. Tracking

Kerning is the adjustment of distance between two letters. You’d use kerning if you felt a word looked funky because the letters A and B were too close together. Tracking, on the other hand, is adjusting the spacing equally between each letter, to either spread apart or bring together an entire word.

Kerning in Photoshop

Kerning in Photoshop is incredibly easy, once you figure out where the “Kerning” tool is. If you’re designing a presentation or email template in Photoshop, and your words look a little sloppy, this is an easy way to clean up your text to improve the appearance.

1. First, ensure your cursor is in between two letters. Next, select the “Character” panel, as highlighted by the red arrow below (If you can’t find it, try searching “Character” within the Photoshop search tool).

3. Within the “Character” panel, you’ll see a V/A (with a little arrow below the A). That’s the “Kerning” tool. It’s automatically set to “Optical”. Click the down arrow to see your options for kerning.

4. For instance, I chose the number “75”. If you’re unsure how much space you want between your letters, test out a few different options. The negative numbers make your letters closer together, and the positive numbers create more space between the letters.

5. Now, there’s a nice “75” point space between my “K” and “E” (of course, this is probably an example of bad kerning … ).

Important note: There’s a quicker option to use the “Kerning” tool in Photoshop. If you click in between two letters, you can hit “Option” and then hit the “Right” arrow. This will create more distance between letters.

Kerning in Word

If your writing copy in Microsoft Word, or using Word to design a poster, you might want to use kerning, especially if your font is bigger and the letters look awkward.

Fortunately, it’s easy to do.

Within a Word document, go to “Format” and then click “Font”. FYI, I left my cursor in between the “K” and the “e” in the document, because that’s the space to which I wanted to apply kerning.

2. Next, click “Advanced” within the Font panel.

3. Under the “Advanced” section, you’ll see “Kerning for fonts” with an empty box to the left of it. Check that box. Then, input a number (I put “20”, which you’ll see circled). The number you choose will depend on how much space you want between the letters.

4. There’s now “20” points of kerning in between the “K” and the “e”.

Kerning in Illustrator

Finally, let’s take a look at kerning in Illustrator. Since many designers and marketers use Illustrator for clients or for personal projects, it’s important to know how to apply kerning to your letters.

Kerning in Illustrator is an almost identical process to how you’d do it in Photoshop (which makes sense, since they’re both Adobe products). Nonetheless, here’s how you do it.

First, click the “Text” tool and put your cursor in between two letters — I put mine in between the “K” and the “E”. Then, find your “Characters” panel.

2. Similar to Photoshop, there will be a “V/A” tool, with a little arrow underneath the “A”. That’s the kerning tool. With your cursor placed between two letters, increase or decrease the number beside the kerning tool — as you can see, I set mine to “200”.

3. Now, I have a (admittedly, very ugly) space between my “K” and my “E”.

Examples of bad kerning

I’ve probably already shown you plenty of bad kerning examples throughout this piece, with my own attempts at kerning on various software.

But if you’d like to see more, don’t worry — we’ve got some hilarious real world examples, to show you just how important (good) kerning is.

I’m willing to bet you already know what kerning is — you just don’t realize it.

While you might not recognize when kerning is done well, you certainly see it when it’s done poorly.

Here’s an example of bad kerning: M a rk e t i ng .

Kerning is adjusting the space between letters, and either increasing or decreasing the distance to ensure better readability or appearance.

Interestingly, it’s not always best to have equal spacing between each letter. Each letter has different shapes and curves, so sometimes kerning actually helps the letters look less conspicuous. For instance, a “cl” can sometimes appear to be a “d”, so you might use kerning to space them further apart.

What is kerning?

Kerning refers to the space between letters to ensure better readability. Since not all letters are created with equal curves and shapes, you might need to increase or decrease the distance between one letter and another, to create more legible text. Kerning improves the appearance and design of your text, which might otherwise look awkward.

No matter what your job title, it’s important to understand the power of kerning. Kerning can help you create better designs, produce more visually appealing copy, or construct better presentations. Kerning is one of those actions that can push your deliverables from ordinary to exceptional.

If you don’t know how kerning works, don’t worry. Here, we’ll show you how to use kerning in Photoshop, Word, and Illustrator. Plus, we’ll provide examples of bad kerning, so you know what to avoid when using kerning for your own text.

Kerning vs. Tracking

Kerning is the adjustment of distance between two letters. You’d use kerning if you felt a word looked funky because the letters A and B were too close together. Tracking, on the other hand, is adjusting the spacing equally between each letter, to either spread apart or bring together an entire word.

Kerning in Photoshop

Kerning in Photoshop is incredibly easy, once you figure out where the “Kerning” tool is. If you’re designing a presentation or email template in Photoshop, and your words look a little sloppy, this is an easy way to clean up your text to improve the appearance.

1. First, ensure your cursor is in between two letters. Next, select the “Character” panel, as highlighted by the red arrow below (If you can’t find it, try searching “Character” within the Photoshop search tool).

3. Within the “Character” panel, you’ll see a V/A (with a little arrow below the A). That’s the “Kerning” tool. It’s automatically set to “Optical”. Click the down arrow to see your options for kerning.

4. For instance, I chose the number “75”. If you’re unsure how much space you want between your letters, test out a few different options. The negative numbers make your letters closer together, and the positive numbers create more space between the letters.

5. Now, there’s a nice “75” point space between my “K” and “E” (of course, this is probably an example of bad kerning … ).

Important note: There’s a quicker option to use the “Kerning” tool in Photoshop. If you click in between two letters, you can hit “Option” and then hit the “Right” arrow. This will create more distance between letters.

Kerning in Word

If your writing copy in Microsoft Word, or using Word to design a poster, you might want to use kerning, especially if your font is bigger and the letters look awkward.

Fortunately, it’s easy to do.

Within a Word document, go to “Format” and then click “Font”. FYI, I left my cursor in between the “K” and the “e” in the document, because that’s the space to which I wanted to apply kerning.

2. Next, click “Advanced” within the Font panel.

3. Under the “Advanced” section, you’ll see “Kerning for fonts” with an empty box to the left of it. Check that box. Then, input a number (I put “20”, which you’ll see circled). The number you choose will depend on how much space you want between the letters.

4. There’s now “20” points of kerning in between the “K” and the “e”.

Kerning in Illustrator

Finally, let’s take a look at kerning in Illustrator. Since many designers and marketers use Illustrator for clients or for personal projects, it’s important to know how to apply kerning to your letters.

Kerning in Illustrator is an almost identical process to how you’d do it in Photoshop (which makes sense, since they’re both Adobe products). Nonetheless, here’s how you do it.

First, click the “Text” tool and put your cursor in between two letters — I put mine in between the “K” and the “E”. Then, find your “Characters” panel.

2. Similar to Photoshop, there will be a “V/A” tool, with a little arrow underneath the “A”. That’s the kerning tool. With your cursor placed between two letters, increase or decrease the number beside the kerning tool — as you can see, I set mine to “200”.

3. Now, I have a (admittedly, very ugly) space between my “K” and my “E”.

Examples of bad kerning

I’ve probably already shown you plenty of bad kerning examples throughout this piece, with my own attempts at kerning on various software.

But if you’d like to see more, don’t worry — we’ve got some hilarious real world examples, to show you just how important (good) kerning is.

A sales page lies at the end of the conversion path. When a prospect arrives on that page, it’s the result of a lot of planning and hard work. So the next part really sucks. Because most of those visitors will leave the page without buying anything. Fortunately — a small silver lining — there … Continue reading “How to Fix 5 Conversion-Killing Copywriting Mistakes”

A sales page lies at the end of the conversion path. When a prospect arrives on that page, it’s the result of a lot of planning and hard work. So the next part really sucks. Because most of those visitors will leave the page without buying anything. Fortunately — a small silver lining — there … Continue reading “How to Fix 5 Conversion-Killing Copywriting Mistakes”